Reading and Applying the Bible
Week 2
Now we look at another approach to reading God’s Word.
The Dogmatic Approach:
“God cannot lie. Therefore, contradictions do not exist in the
mind of God. And since ALL Scripture is inspired by
God, ALL of it is trustworthy. In light of that basic
presupposition, attempts to harmonize all the teaching of Scripture
on a given subject or to compose a comprehensive systematic
arrangement of all the teachings
of the Bible are valid.
Not only is systematic study of Scripture valid, it is
necessary. For example, it is essential for the theologian to
study AL L Scriptures that describe the way of
salvation.
Should he take a particular passage, isolate it from all
other passages dealing with how a person may be saved and construct
a doctrine of salvation, the result would distort God’s truth
concerning salvation.”
(McQuilkin pg 67)
It is already an horrendous thing to see and hear secular people
take a piece of Scripture and butcher it to fit their palate, own
immoral behavior, and agenda; however, it is sad and heart wrenching
to hear the Beloved Christian do it either out of ignorance, led of
the flesh instead of the Spirit, or tragically on purpose to suit
their own agenda. It breaks God’s heart, grieves the Holy Spirit,
harms the Christian, and hinders the work of the church, and slanders
the name of Jesus. Everyone of us comes the Scripture or any written
work that we may read with a set of presuppositions. “ What is
behind our glasses has more to do with interpretation than what is
before,” is said by Dr. McQuilkin is a truth we must always keep in
mind when we pray before we attempt to read and hear what God is
actually saying through His Word. A good example would be a passage
such as Jesus’ first miracle in John’s Gospel account., turning
water into wine, and using it as an example or “Scriptural”
license to stock our refrigerators, cupboards, cabinets, and ice
chests with beer, wine, and liquor. While drinking a glass of wine
is not a sin, it spiritually has absolutely no benefit in our walk
with Christ. If anything, there are numerous passages in the Old
Testament that warn of the danger and downfalls of beginning that
path. In the New Testament, we are instructed to be filled with the
Spirit and not under the influence of wine. (Or any chemical that
influences our flesh, heart, thoughts, intents, motives, attitudes,
and the Holy Spirit’s rule in His temples, our bodies.) If we’re
going to be dogmatic about Scripture, it must always be that it is
infallible, absolute Truth, always in harmony with every other
passage and book of the Bible, and the final say so in how we are to
think, speak, live, and make Holy Spirit led decisions in our own
walk, our families, and our church.
Traditions can be viewed in a negative manner or positive manner.
There are Biblical traditions that we in the New Testament Biblical
church have today, that many do not realize come from Biblical
tradition. The “church letter” that we keep with us at our
current fellowships or move with us to another fellowship when the
Holy Spirit moves us to do so. It comes from the epistles of Paul
and his instructions in his letter for the church to receive so and
so because he knows of their good standing. The use of an elevated
platform and a pulpit are both pragmatic spiritually and physically.
It is carried on from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, it elevates the
Word of God above the people and physically it makes it easier to be
heard sitting in the back away from the pulpit. It’s purpose was
to hold the scrolls of Scripture or Bible now in our day, and never
elevate the man of God above His brothers and sisters. This is also
the case in synagogues born during the Babylonian Captivity, also the
very same synagogues where Paul planted churches at in his missionary
trips. We can’t be dogmatic on these because they’re not
commanded to be such in the Bible, but if it worked for Ezra, Jesus’
synagogues where He preached, and Paul, we cannot dismiss it
dogmatically either. Music in worship is another tradition that can
be viewed negative by one Christian or denomination, but positive by
another. As long as the lyrics are Biblical, directed to the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, then they are worship. We at Glade use a piano
and an organ to aide in worship praise and song, but our Primitive
Baptist brothers and sisters dogmatically prohibit instruments and
the seating of male and female Christians together during classes and
worship while singing the same exact hymns we at Glade do. To be
honest, the safest way to be dogmatic about anything in Christianity
is to be dogmatic about what God is dogmatic about, be led of the
Holy Spirit, and take God at His Word.
Our personal experiences with God can easily lead us into dogmatic
presuppositions in interpreting the Bible. In a positive manner, the
more we as individual Christians trust and obey God, the more He
manifests His faithfulness to us. This is Scriptural; however, our
personal experience with God can become hindering to proper Biblical
interpretation. Since the Bible is the ultimate authority, it is NOT
subject to our own personal experience with God in
interpretation. “For example, a conversion experience is always
accompanied by certain ideas about sin, the Person of Jesus Christ,
the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the purposes of the church, to
mention a few. If at a latter time a Christian refuses to alter his
views in light of the Biblical testimony, saying, ‘But I know what
I always believed to be true because I experienced it,’ or “God
was at work in my life then, so I know it must be true,’ then
personal experience has become the authority. We must interpret our
experience by the Bible and not interpret the Bible by our
experience.” (McQuilkin pg 73) We all will give an account to how
we interpret Scripture: 2nd Timothy 2:15 “Study
to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane
[and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
Here we see how to study God’s
Word and the danger of being wrongfully dogmatic.
McQuilkin
writes that…
the supernaturalistic approach interprets all Scripture from a supernatural point of view. The interpreter's task, consequently, is to seek several meanings or hidden meanings, which are to be uncovered through intuition and spiritual experience. The "natural" meaning of the text is downgraded or totally ignored. (Understanding and Applying The Bible)This approach is synonymous with the…
Allegorical method - allegory searches for a hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text and the respected commentator Matthew Henry plainly states Song of Solomon "is an allegory" and goes on to add
that after the title of the book (Song of Solomon 1:1) we have Christ and his church, Christ and a believer, expressing their esteem for each other.
Clearly, Henry's interpretative approach does not seek the literal, natural meaning of the Song of Solomon but represents the allegorical approach.
In
the supernatural approach…
• The interpreter seeks to reveal a hidden meaning.
• Hidden meaning rules in the author's approach to interpreting the Scripture
• This method at first glance looks and sounds quite "spiritual"
• The problem is that the obvious (literal) meaning of the passage is often ignored and thus the interpreter does not take the Author's meaning and purpose seriously
The upshot of this approach is that the Bible is not allowed to be its own authority but the authority rests in the hands of the interpreter and unfortunately the result is that the interpretation "adds" to God's intended meaning of the passage.
A notable example of a commentator who approaches the Scriptures leaning heavily on the supernaturalistic approach is Arthur Pink. Pink frequently discusses "types" (other than those the Bible itself specifically designates as "types") in which he uses an OT event, personage or institution and associates it figuratively with some truth in the NT. Much of Pink's work is now freely available on the internet and often has very insightful comments on the Scriptures. However in consulting his works, the reader is strongly advised to be aware of his supernaturalistic approach to the Scriptures lest one take away from a passage a meaning that God never intended. Remember that the most efficacious application of Scripture is predicated upon an accurate interpretation, lest one be misapply the Scriptures to their own detriment. Here is an example of A W Pink's interpretation of passages in Joshua…
Israel's capture of Jericho unmistakably pre-figured the victories achieved, under God, by the Gospel. The priests blowing with the trumpets of rams' horns pictured the servants of God preaching his Word. The forbidding of "the people" to open their mouths signified that the rank and file of Christians are to have no part in the oral proclamation of the Truth—they are neither qualified for nor called to the ministration of the Word. Nowhere in the Epistles is there a single exhortation for the saints as such to engage in public evangelism, nor even to do "personal work" and seek to be "soul winners." Rather are they required to "witness for Christ" by their daily conduct in business and in the home. They are to "show forth" God's praises, rather than tell them forth. They are to let their light shine. The testimony of the life is far more effectual than glib utterances of the lips. Actions speak louder than words. (Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Joshua)
Naturalistic Approach
Rationalism-The
Bible is rational in the sense it appeals to the mind so it can
transform the mind.
Romans
12:2
The
naturalistic approach limits the meaning to what one can understand.
Some who espouse this approach say "I believe the Bible"
but allow for nothing supernatural in the Bible! Other less strict
naturalists allow for some supernatural elements in the Bible.
McQuilkin writes that…
the rationalist cannot accept the miraculous in Scripture because he has not personally experienced the miraculous, and also because reports of miracles cannot be verified by experimentation. Therefore, they must be explained either as a misapprehension of natural events or as myth growing up around some historical or imagined event. (Understanding and Applying The Bible)What is rationalism? Briefly stated, in rationalism one relies solely on his or her human reasoning. And so if they cannot verify it in their experience it is not the Word of God. The Naturalistic approach became the dominant mode of interpretation in the 1600's. The authority in this interpretative approach is one's own human reasoning. The rationalist is his or her own final judge and jury on what any passage of Scripture means.
Those who hold to the Naturalistic Approach see 3 problems with the Word of God:
1). Certain things they feel are morally unworthy of God.
E.g., they have difficulty accepting David's Imprecatory (invoking evil upon another) prayers, with Israel's instructions to take the promised land and to kill obliterate the original inhabitants (utterly destroy the men, women and children) from the land. Those who hold the natural approach cannot see that a loving God would command such "atrocities".2). Miracles
3). "Seeming" contradictions in Scripture and "seeming" contradictions with science.
What is the "natural" result of the Naturalistic approach?
McQuilkin writes that…
the rationalist cannot accept the miraculous in Scripture because he has not personally experienced the miraculous, and also because reports of miracles cannot be verified by experimentation. Therefore, they must be explained either as a misapprehension of natural events or as myth growing up around some historical or imagined event… The end result of the rationalistic approach to Scripture is simply this: there is no sure word from God. That is, Scripture has no independent authority, for human reasoning is the final authority for judging anything that presents itself as a word from God. (Understanding and Applying The Bible)This directly contradicts the writer of Proverbs who records that…
Every word of God is tested (refined as the goldsmith refines precious metal, the result being pure gold without imperfections or contaminants!) (Proverbs 30:5)These individuals allow human reasoning rather than context and God's Spirit ("the Spirit of truth [Who] will guide you into all truth" John 16:13) to rules in their interpretation of Scripture.
Before listing the three subdivisions of the Naturalistic Approach, you should understand that the term Biblical criticism describes the skillful evaluation ("rational") of the data (the Biblical text including the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) to determine the truth about the Scripture. The practice of "Biblical criticism" did not arise until the 1800's.
No comments:
Post a Comment